From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2561 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2016 00:04:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 2548 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2016 00:04:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:lan, hate, H*F:D*to, H*M:pinnacle X-HELO: emailserver1.aplushosting.com Received: from emailserver1.asdf456.com (HELO emailserver1.aplushosting.com) (72.18.207.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with SMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:04:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 11084 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 2016 00:04:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pinnacle.lan) (70.176.31.165) by emailserver1.asdf456.com with SMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:04:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: C++11 (abridged version) Message-ID: <20161026170408.1783d717@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> References: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00730.txt.bz2 On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:07:58 +0100 Pedro Alves wrote: > My opinion on #3 (should we require C++11 now), is yes. C++11 is a > great step up from C++03, and being able to use it fully would result > in a more efficiency gdb, and would also allow simplifying things that > require ugly workarounds in C++03. I.e., if you hate C++ and you think > it's messy, it may actually be that what you hate is C++03, and that you'd > actually like C++11 if you give it a chance. E.g., rvalue references, efficient > move-aware containers (also allowing us to make containers "own" the containing > objects, resulting in even simpler code), template aliases, variadic templates, > etc. etc. C++11 would avoid having to consider reimplementing basic utilities > like e.g., a type-safe hash table. C++11 is also a _simpler_ language in a way, > as some ugly warts have been ironed out in the language (e.g., std::string > and contiguous buffer guarantees). While I claim no deep understanding of C++ (any version), I find this point compelling. Therefore, I'm in favor of requiring C++11 for building GDB. Kevin